Skip to main content

About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
544

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Sugaya 2, Borden 2, Moore 2, Antonini 2, Vaughn 1, Wiener 1, Emoryville California 1, Wu 1, Hillis 1, Commissionure Wu 1, Fong 1, The City 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV2    [untitled]  

    December 6, 2012
    1:30 - 2:00pm PST  

1:30pm
we have more than 9,000 cars so we know a little bit about car sharing and at any point in the future i can assist in these efforts or ask questions please feel free to reach out to anyone in our office. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners, i am sue vaughn and with the sierra club. i am going to read a letter i understand didn't get into the packet. we support the car share programs in general and appreciative of the efforts to change the overall plang and transportation context to accommodate these programs. however we do not believe that the proposed legislation to permit increases in the allowable parking space asks and more development and car share spaces will meet overall goals
1:31pm
and meet greenhouse gas regulations. the planning commission will consider this proposal on december 6 -- yes, you're considering it today. the sierra club is concerned that increasing the number of allowable parking spaces, even car share spacing will add to congestion and affect air quality. increasing the number of spaces violates the transit first pltion of the city. the sierra club notes because of safety issues these are not ideal places for car share pods. we encourage the planning commission and transportation commission and board of supervisors to adopt best practices from elsewhere and create edidated on street or street level parking for car share vehicles as was done in new jersey and emoryville california and thank you and i will leave this letter right
1:32pm
here. >> any additional public comment on this item? okay. seeing none the public comment portion is closed. commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i think this is very good legislation and it brings us closer to reality because there are many people who own their cars and want their cars in their residence or close to their residences. there is increasing number of people that can get along without a car or fewer cars in a family but need the accessibility for groceries and other needs and child car and realistic parts of life, so i think that adding additional car share spaces to future projects without having the
1:33pm
sponsor to diminish the number of spaces makes total sense to me and i think the staff's modifications are fine with two exceptions. the first exception is i'm not sure that i like the idea of mta being able to come on to private property to enforce whether these pods are used for car share or not. i think that some sort of reporting by the zip car or other car share agency who is using these for their cars be it photographs of privately parked cars or others in there, then that could be -- they could then be cited. i think that private property is not the place to have our mta officers driving around to police, but i think it will be self policed and zip
1:34pm
car and other car share companies would lose revenue if in fact people are using these for residential parking, so that would be my modification to that one, and second of all, and i did speak with the supervisor earlier today, and i can ask mr. power if i am correct about this, but his feeling -- my interpretation of his remarks were that he did not want a project that had been granted a cu for parking above what was principally permitted to then in the future go ahead and ask for additional car share, but he was in my opinion okay with a sponsor coming up and saying "if i see you and -- they could be entitled to for example one to one or 7-5 and go for the cu and ask at that time for additional
1:35pm
car pods and am i interpreting that correctly. >> not exactly. i think the extent as we move forward for entitlement and provide incentive and not go above the allotment and at the time they go for the cu and .75 parking opposed to oint five and the provision is not exercisable. >> okay. i maybe misinterpreted but my feeling is when a project is put forward the sponsor can certainly try to get -- conditional use we find it as commissioners necessary to grant that, but additional residential parking -- not additional, but bringing it closer to reality, which is people should have a parking spot if they buy a house or place of residence, but we have strict limits on that, but
1:36pm
moving that to the limit allowed by cu is a different question on the number of car share pods. i think we need as many that we can have and encourage people -- that 25% or in some case 50% that have bought or renting a residential unit and not allowed to have their car on site are encouraged to rent or buy this place because they have the accessibility to a safe car in a safe place, not going out to the street and finding their car burglarized every night or go to a lot in the rain to get their zip car. it makes perfect sense, so that is my feeling. i think it's good legislation. i will support it either way but i would like to see those two modifications. >> commissioner borden. >> i don't agree with the
1:37pm
modifications. i think staff did a great job making the legislation stronger and in align what we're trying to accomplish and get people to drive less and use alternative forms of transportation. i live in this upper market neighborhood and because of the reduction of cars the prices have gone up to have a car share available and it's harder to find one closer to the home because of the reduction of the site and i see it real time happening as a regular car share user. in fact i have a guest that came over at thanksgiving and taxis were talking about the car share cars gone and they had to take taxis instead and i think the cars are used in max and i think it's great to create an incentive, and we had many cares talking to developers and include more car share spaces but they don't want to give up
1:38pm
what is limited parking for that and as we see more people using it in the future and developers will decide they don't need to provide such much parking and it's viable. >> commissionure wu. >> i have questions about staff about enforcement, so the proposal i believe is that in the future mta could take over enforcement but that is an action that has to be taken by the mta board. is that correct? >> i think it's a separate piece of legislation. >> did i hear correctly and supervisor wiener is interested in pursuing that? okay. thank you. i have a couple of thoughts about this. i feel like it's important to have the deed restriction and the no cu clauses to support the legislation. part of me feels like developers are already putting car share in their parking garages or other
1:39pm
private parking areas, so i just have a little bit of hesitation there but i do appreciate the efforts from staff and i think that makes the legislation much stronger. >> commissioner sugaya. >> we don't have a requirement for car share, do we? >> yeah we do have a requirement for car share. if it's less than 50 years you don't need a space but over 50 i think it's one and over a hundred i think it's two, so there is a minimum amount. this would basically set a maximum amount. >> but they're not in the spaces required under the code? >> no. they do not count -- your required car share spaces don't count against your max parking allotment. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> just clarification. you have of course the principally permitted residential parking that varies from project to
1:40pm
project and gain by cu and some places there are requirements for car share but there is a maximum on the car share as it now exists in most instances? >> the maximum is -- let's say you're required to have one space and you can have that and doesn't take away from the maximum amount but if you max out the parking it can't add car share spaces so this allows to you add in addition to that and not count against you on a voluntary basis though. >> you have a formula for commercial and residential that you spelled out as modifications that prescribe the number that would be allowed? >> correct. >> okay. that sounds like it's well done. thank you. >> commissioner borden. >>i want to move to approve the staff modification. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> i have a couple of
1:41pm
questions. i think under item five there is a certain amount of ambiguity to what is permitted storage in any residential building, renter, owner, permitted storage and garage. it's a very difficult issue. you can't store fire wood or cardboard boxes or paint cans or any of those things and it's very difficult to enforce even when it's not allowed to create potential other storage space within non used spaces which are provided potentially for share parking. i find that too vague. in addition to that motorcycles, scooters, other assisted movement cars could be there, but they shouldn't. i think there needs to be more definition on what permitted storage and other permitted
1:42pm
uses means. >> there was a motion. there is a second. >> commissioners on the motion to approve as modified proposed by staff. commissioner tone. >> aye. >> commissioner board. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> commissioner wu. >> commissioner president fong? >> aye. >> that passes unanimously. >> the commission is going to take a 20 minute break here. thank you.
1:43pm
1:44pm
1:45pm
1:46pm
1:47pm
1:48pm
1:49pm
1:50pm
1:51pm
1:52pm
1:53pm
1:54pm
1:55pm
1:56pm
1:57pm
1:58pm
1:59pm